# Lal Naresh Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 782
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-05-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54794 of 2011
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran, Mohd. Tahir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lal-naresh-bahadur-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42976
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Art-300-A- Construction
of link road-Bhumidhari Land of petitioner
utilized
without
acquisition-without
compensation-even the compensation offered
during pendency of writ petition-amount-land
garbing by mighty state-direction issued to
take recourse of procedure contained in land
acquisition Act-with liberty to file referencepetition allowed with cost of Rs. 25000/-
payable within two month.

Held: Para-7
Though the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has
been repealed after coming into force of Act
of 2013, with effect from 1.1.2014, yet
considering the facts and circumstances of
this case and keeping in view that the land
of the petitioner was taken in the year
2009, when the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was in force, we direct that proceedings for
awarding compensation be taken, treating
section 4 notification under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 to have been issued
as on this date i.e. 27.5.2014 and to make
the award under the provisions of the Act of
1894, after hearing the parties and in
accordance with law, within a period of six
months from today. The petitioner shall also
have the liberty to file a Reference under
section 18 of the Act and pursue the
remedies available to him under the said
Act of 1894. Needless to say that the
2 All] Lal Naresh Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
783
petitioner shall be entitled to all other
statutory benefits also.

Case Law discussed:
2013 (2) AWC 1795.

## Text

782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recommendation for giving compassionate
appointment was made by the Superintendent
Engineer on 25.9.1998. The application was
rejected in the year 2004 and the ground as
elaborated before this court is that the amended
provisions shall not apply to old applications. The
application of the petitioner was not rejected on
any other ground. In view of these facts, the
judgment in the case of Seema Srivastava is
distinguishable.

10. Lastly, Sri Mishra submits that the
compassionate
appointment
cannot
be
granted after a lapse of a reasonable period,
which must be specified in the rules. I do not
find any force in this submission in view of
the facts of the present case. The
compassionate
appointment
has
been
declined to the petitioner merely on the
ground that the amendment provisions of
2002 shall not apply when application for
compassionate
appointment
was
being
considered in the year 2004 rather the
unamended provision shall apply. In the facts
and circumstances of the case since, it was
not the ground for rejection of application of
compassionate appointment of the peitioner
and as such new ground cannot be permitted
to be raised.

11. In view of the foregoing discussion, I
find that the impugned order dated 23.12.2004
read with the letter of the U.P. Power
Corporation No. 5818 are hereby set aside. The
respondent no.5 shall pass appropriate order in
accordance with law in the matter of
compassionate appointment of the petitioner
within a period of three months from the date
of a certified copy of this order is filed.

12. The writ petition is allowed with
the aforesaid directions.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. TAHIR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54794 of 2011

Lal Naresh Bahadur Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, Sri Triloki Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India-Art-300-A- Construction
of link road-Bhumidhari Land of petitioner
utilized
without
acquisition-without
compensation-even the compensation offered
during pendency of writ petition-amount-land
garbing by mighty state-direction issued to
take recourse of procedure contained in land
acquisition Act-with liberty to file referencepetition allowed with cost of Rs. 25000/-
payable within two month.

Held: Para-7
Though the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has
been repealed after coming into force of Act
of 2013, with effect from 1.1.2014, yet
considering the facts and circumstances of
this case and keeping in view that the land
of the petitioner was taken in the year
2009, when the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was in force, we direct that proceedings for
awarding compensation be taken, treating
section 4 notification under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 to have been issued
as on this date i.e. 27.5.2014 and to make
the award under the provisions of the Act of
1894, after hearing the parties and in
accordance with law, within a period of six
months from today. The petitioner shall also
have the liberty to file a Reference under
section 18 of the Act and pursue the
remedies available to him under the said
Act of 1894. Needless to say that the
2 All] Lal Naresh Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
783
petitioner shall be entitled to all other
statutory benefits also.

Case Law discussed:
2013 (2) AWC 1795.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. The land of the petitioner has been
taken
over
by
the
respondents
for
construction of road without resorting to any
procedure under the law. Being aggrieved by
such action of the respondents, the petitioner
has filed this writ petition with the prayer for
issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding
the
respondents
not
to
dispossess
the
petitioner
from
his
"bhumidhari" land and in the alternative, to
award compensation along with interest as
per the present value of the land.

2. We have heard Sri Amrendra
Pratap Singh along with Sri Triloki Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents. Pleadings between the
parties have been exchanged and with
their consent, this writ petition is being
disposed of at this stage.

3. The case of the petitioner has by and
large been admitted by the respondents in
their counter affidavit wherein, in paragraph
4, it has been stated that for construction of
approach road connecting the bridge made
over river "Tons", the land of various tenure
holders was taken and in 20% of the cases,
with consent of the tenure holders. What is
surprising is that in the said paragraph the
respondents state that "the tenure holders
including the petitioner were informed on
13.9.2010 that compensation at market circle
rate would be paid to them. Out of plot nos.
23 (273) and 276 of the petitioner 0.068 +
0.023 = 0-091 hectare land has been taken by
consent of the petitioner and a cheque of Rs.
40,950/- at the present circle rate was offered
to the petitioner which he refused to accept."
Photocopy of the cheque dated 15.3.2012,
said to have been tendered to the petitioner,
has been filed as Annexure-C.A.1; a list of
tenure holders who have accepted the
compensation at the circle rate has been filed
as Annexure-C.A. 2; and some sale deeds
executed by the tenure holders in favour of
the State-respondents have been filed as
Annexures-C.A. 3, 4, 5 and 6.

4. Interestingly, neither any consent of
the petitioner nor agreement with the
petitioner has been filed nor any sale deed is
said to have been executed by the petitioner
in favour of the respondents. What is also
interesting to note is that in the said
paragraph the respondents state that the
petitioner was informed on 13.9.2010 that
compensation would be paid at the market
circle rate. The respondents thus admit that
no process under the Land Acquisition Act
or any other law for acquiring such land had
been initiated. By giving information
regarding compensation, in the manner as is
said to have been given to the petitioner
appears to be a command or direction to the
tenure holders that they shall be paid
compensation at the 'market circle rate'
which the respondents have themselves
determined. It is noteworthy that for more
than a year after the decision is said to have
been taken on 13.9.2010, no compensation as
suggested also was paid. In September 2011
this petition was filed and the offer to pay has
also been given during the pendency of this
petition and just before the filing of the
counter affidavit by the respondents.

5. A land-owner cannot be deprived of
his land, except in accordance with law. The
high-handed
attitude
adopted
by
the
respondents in first taking over the land of the
petitioner and thereafter commanding the
petitioner to accept the alleged "market circle
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rate" as determined by the respondents
themselves, is highly unreasonable. If the land
is needed for any purpose of the State
Government, it could have acquired the same
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 and now under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act
of 2013"). If the action of the respondents,
which they have themselves admitted, is
condoned and the respondents are permitted
to take the land of any land-owner and
thereafter offer the price of the "market circle
rate", it would amount to land grabbing at the
hands of the "mighty" State. Such action of
the respondents taking over the land of private
land owners cannot be permitted by courts of
law, as the rule of law has to be maintained by
all persons, and more so by the State
authorities.

6. In similar facts, the Apex Court in the
case of Bhimandas Ambwani vs. Delhi Power
Co. Ltd. 2013 (2) AWC 1795, wherein land
owner was dispossessed without resorting to
any valid law for acquisition of land and
thereafter a residential colony was constructed
on the said land, has, after finding that it was
difficult to restore back the possession to the
land owner, held that the respondents would
make an award treating section 4 notification
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as on
the date of the judgment, which in that case
was 12.2.2013. We are of the view that the
petitioner herein would also be entitled to
similar relief.

7. Though the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 has been repealed after coming into
force of Act of 2013, with effect from
1.1.2014, yet considering the facts and
circumstances of this case and keeping in
view that the land of the petitioner was taken
in the year 2009, when the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 was in force, we direct that
proceedings for awarding compensation be
taken, treating section 4 notification under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to have been
issued as on this date i.e. 27.5.2014 and to
make the award under the provisions of the
Act of 1894, after hearing the parties and in
accordance with law, within a period of six
months from today. The petitioner shall also
have the liberty to file a Reference under
section 18 of the Act and pursue the remedies
available to him under the said Act of 1894.
Needless to say that the petitioner shall be
entitled to all other statutory benefits also.

8. This writ petition stands allowed
to the extent indicated above.

9. In the peculiar facts of this case
where the land of the petitioner is said to have
been taken from him in the year 2009 without
following the process of law and as per the
counter affidavit itself, the petitioner was
informed on 13.9.2010 that compensation at
the market circle rate would be paid to him
whereas the cheque is said to be offered after
nearly two years on 15.3.2012, which all go to
show that the respondents had not even
proceeded efficiently even after depriving the
petitioner of his land, we are of the view that
the petitioner would be entitled to payment of
cost, which we assess at Rs. 25,000/-. The
respondent
no.2-District
Magistrate,
Allahabad shall ensure that the said cost is
paid to the petitioner within two months from
today, failing which the petitioner shall be
entitled to file an application before this Court
for issuance of further directions.
--------